[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cdrecord floating point exception

Am Samstag, den 31.01.2009, 16:22 +0100 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > There always was only one cdrecord source code since it's 
> > > creation in late 1995. The first DVD support code was added in
> > > February 1998 but could not be made OpenSource due to an NDA.
> > > Anyway, the DVD support in cdrecord code became OpenSource long 
> > > before the fork "wodim" was created. 
> >
> > Indeed the sequence was 
> > 1) End of ProDVD (May 2006)
> > 2) Fork of cdrkit (Oct 2006)
> >
> > But the release of ProDVD functionality in cdrtools
> > source tarballs marks exactly the point where the
> > fork took off:
> >   http://lists.debian.org/cdwrite/2006/05/msg00021.html
> > Here you announce cdrtools-2.01.01a09 and mention CDDL.
> > The fork of cdrkit is based on cdrtools-2.01.01a08.
> >   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit
> >
> > So they probably did not take your DVD code because they
> > assumed that it is not under GPL.
> The DVD code of course is not under GPL.
> The Debian people who started the fork claimed that they did this
> because they found a GPL violation in cdrecord.
> Judge yourself on whether this is a lie....
> How can cdrecord be in a GPL violation when it is completely licensed
> under the aproved free CDDL?

AFAIR the point was that Debian considered the new license situation
unclear enough that they wanted to avoid being drawn into lawsuits. 

They're not the original authors or copyright bearers, so mixed licenses
or unclear relicensing from GPL to CDDL may be rather harmful for them.
I think - someone check the archives - that was the actual concern
they've had.

> As a hint, one of my other projects "star" is also 100% CDDL and distributed
> by Debian without problems.

AFAICT, it doesn't have contributions from different parties under
different licenses. If you think it's safe that Debian redistribute a
CDDL-ed cdrecord, try to convince them, perhaps present evidence that
all contributors consent with the license change.

Calling people names, or liars, certainly isn't going to convince
them... and your view on certain abstraction layers in some open source
operating systems, or freedesktop.org abstractions, also make it
difficult for them to ship your software. cdrecord often fights against
Linux, rather than use its offers.

While all the world talks of cross-layer optimization, a certain Jörg
Schilling rather discussed weeks over weeks (2005) about one device
offering mid- and blocklayer access at the same time... you're what
Germans call a "Prinzipienreiter", and that's what makes people think
it's hard to work with you. I've tried to moderate once, wasted a lot of
time since you were unwilling or uncapable of sticking to objective
facts and started to call people impolite terms... and I see that now,
three years later, nothing has changed. (I'm not going to try again.)

Also, you would refuse some of my bug analyses at the time when cdrecord
had hard times.

And BTW, not to send too many messages, hald is exactly the device
enumerator that interfaces between Desktop and low-layer stuff,
operating system APIs and such. hald isn't a Debian or Linux specific,
but also used by FreeBSD, for instance.

cdrecord had better play nice with hald, else cdrecord is going to
disappear sooner or later for lack of users...

Reply to: